I am delighted to see that Jefferson Morley is a regular reader of my blog. He recently posted a lengthy reply to my blog post on Operation Northwoods, which responded to his unpersuasive case for its relevance. Morley has been convinced, for a long time, that the George Joannides personnel file may have information on a supposed operation involving Lee Harvey Oswald. He is now convinced that these documents "may relate" to Northwoods. As I will show below, the ARRB reviewed these files and they understood perfectly Joannides' role in working with the DRE back in 1963. Their reviewer found nothing in those documents that was related to the JFK assassination. Here is my response to Morley: The Kennedys and Cuba Morley cannot understand why my blog post did not mention the revived Operation Northwoods document of May 1, 1963. The explanation is in the last paragraph of my post: Operation Mongoose was ended after the Cuban Missile Crisis in late 1962. However, John and Robert Kennedy still wanted to get rid of Castro. But that's for another post. Morley also takes exception to my description of JFK's war against Castro: From the start Litwin overstates his case. JFK’s desire to get rid of Castro was not exactly “rabid.” It did not extend to “the use of U.S. military force,” much less to the Pentagon’s plans for staging a violent incident in the United States and blaming it on Castro. As I showed in my last post, even RFK talked about possibly staging a violent provocation and blaming it on Castro. Here is an excerpt from a meeting held at the beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis: RFK: . . . one other thing is whether, uh, we should also think of, uh, uh, whether there is some other way we can get involved in this through, uh, Guantanamo Bay, or something, er, or whether there's some ship that, you know, sink the Maine again or something. I think the word 'rabid' is correct, and the Kennedys continued their efforts to topple Castro well after the end of Operation Mongoose in late 1962. Morley mentions a crackdown on Cuban-exile groups: Litwin notes correctly that the authors of Operation Northwoods stressed such extreme measures were only needed if "covert efforts to foster an internal Cuban rebellion are unsuccessful.” By the spring of 1963, the Kennedy White House was cracking down on Miami-based exiles staging independent attacks on Cuban targets that amounted to little more than international piracy. It was obvious to the chiefs that JFK’s policy of fostering an internal rebellion was failing. That’s why they revived the Northwoods concept in this March 25 [sic; actually May 1], 1963, memo, which Litwin’s account inexplicably fails to mention. Yes, the Kennedy administration was cracking down on the exiles. But that was only because they wanted to handle the activities themselves. And yes, the Chiefs were prescient in understanding that an internal rebellion was not going to happen. And so, they dusted off an old plan. But let's have a detailed chronological look at the documentary record of what was going on in the Kennedy White House in 1962 - 1963, before and after that May 1st memo. One major point is that both RFK and JFK were apparently pushing to get rid of Castro; they weren't being pushed. Many people believe that President Kennedy made an unequivocal commitment not to invade Cuba after the Cuban Missile Crisis. That is not the case. Here is a note from a meeting of the Executive Committee of the National Security Council on November 21, 1962: The President agreed that we could abandon insistence on ground inspection, but he felt that the proposed no-invasion assurances were too hard. He said our objective is to preserve our right to invade Cuba in the event of civil war, if there were guerrilla activities in other Latin American countries or if offensive weapons were reintroduced into Cuba. We do not want to build up Castro by means of a no-invasion guarantee. A significant uprising in Cuba or Cuban guerilla activities in other countries could offer a pretext for an invasion. This is perhaps why so many of the approved plans called for activities to encourage a revolt. On January 22, 1963, President Kennedy spoke to the National Security Council and reiterated that planning should always "keep Cuba in mind in the coming months and be ready to move with all possible speed": In February, the JCS held a meeting with JFK on planning an invasion of Cuba: On April 3, 1963, a memo was sent from Gordon Chase of the National Security Council Staff to McGeorge Bundy: On the same day, JFK met with RFK, Helms and Bundy and others: RFK raised the issue of commando-type raids on Cuba and then "urged, in any case, that CIA survey all possibilities for aggressive action in Cuba over the next six months, assuming that the Agency could be given a free rein to proceed." All possibilities? Does Morley really think that General Lyman Lemnitzer never heard that kind of language from the Kennedys? Oh, I am sorry, Lemnitzer was no longer Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was Maxwell Taylor. JFK himself said that the "CIA should examine exactly what might be accomplished in the field of sabotage during the next six months." On April 9, 1963, a meeting was held to discuss Gordon Chase's memo: In an April 18, 1963 memo, the new coordinator of Cuban Affairs (who replaced Lansdale), Sterling Cottrell, offered a new covert policy towards Cuba: Other proposals were on the table: On April 20, 1963, the National Security met to discuss Laos: 9. The President stated his belief that it was necessary to raise the pressure somewhat in Cuba. He felt that we could hardly continue to carry out a mild policy in Cuba at the time the Communists are carrying out an aggressive policy in Laos. He thus approved certain U-2 flights over Cuba. These flights and other activities against Cuba, however, will be delayed until the anticipated release by Cuba of prisoners on April 22. The President requested recommendations on April 22 for additional efforts which can be taken in Cuba. The Standing Group of the National Security Council met on April 23, 1963, to look at additional means to pressure Castro. RFK had some ideas: As mentioned above, JFK had approved U-2 flights over Cuba, and now RFK is talking about "measures" that could be taken if one is shot down. Were they not looking for a pretext to invade Cuba? Ted Sorensen listed the seven objectives raised at the meeting: On April 29, 1963, JFK wrote a memo to McNamara: On May 28, 1963, there was a meeting of the Standing Group of the National Security Council and McNamara brought up the possibility of a staged event: Robert Kennedy wanted action: The Attorney General, who entered the meeting in the middle of Mr. FitzGerald’s briefing, said the U.S. must do something against Castro, even though we do not believe our actions would bring him down. On June 8 1963, the CIA presented a "Proposed Covert and Integrated Program of Action toward Cuba to the Standing Group." Annex A described the kind of sabotage activities that were envisaged: President Kennedy approved the program on June 19, 1963. They were targeting four segments of the Cuban economy: electric power, petroleum refineries, railroad and highway transportation, and production and manufacturing. The memo notes that "Raids will be conducted from outside Cuba, using Cuban agents under CIA control. Missions will be staged from a U. S. key." Another similar memo indicated that JFK wanted the sabotage to occur as soon as possible: The Joint Chiefs of Staff noted the approval of this plan: And here is their recommendation: This is the milieu in which the JCS operated. This brings us to the March 1963 version of Northwoods. Morley writes: In fact, the Pentagon renewed its demand for a Cuban pretext operation in March 1963. Litwin, usually an assiduous researcher, seems to have overlooked this May 1, 1963 Pentagon document, which tells the story. A demand? I can find no language in the Pentagon documents which refer to a 'demand.' Also note that nowhere in this document is there any notion that a violent incident would be staged on U.S. soil as alleged by Morley. The original Northwoods proposal indicated it was a preliminary submission: The Joint Chiefs kept similar language in the 1963 proposal. They knew that this plan would involve many agencies of the U. S. government and not just the military: Other agencies of the United States government would be needed to implement the plan. The JCS once again wanted to forward this plan to the Special Group for consideration. Here is the briefing sheet for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: Aa I said earlier, Maxwell Taylor was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He was very close to JFK. Is there any way he would countenance a rogue operation from the Joint Chiefs? This contingency plan was dependent on cooperation from a variety of branches of government. In any case, this memo was discussed on May 6, 1963: Clause 5 takes an engineered major incident off the table, but notes that "fabricated provocations, either alone or in conjunction with a contrived revolt, should be developed by appropriate governmental agencies." The Department of Defense wasn't wedded to a Northwoods-style plan. In fact, the Department of Defense and the State Department worked on a joint plan: To sum up, in 1962, General Lansdale, head of Operation Mongoose, asked the JCS for a "description of pretexts which would provide justification" for an intervention in Cuba, and they responded with Operation Northwoods. They put in a proviso in to their plan: it was only needed if "covert efforts to foster an internal Cuban rebellion are unsuccessful. Operation Mongoose ended in October 1962, but the effort to get rid of Castro did not. There was a lot of interest in fomenting an internal Cuba rebellion, but the JCS, once again, realized that wasn't going to happen, developed a plan involving pretexts. It didn't go anywhere, and I doubt it was ever presented to the Special Group. In any case, General Maxwell Taylor was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and a close ally of JFK. I somehow think that JFK knew exactly what was going on. 2. Operation Northwoods and the JFK assassination But what about Operation Northwoods and the JFK assassination? Morley writes: There’s absolutely no connection between Northwoods and November 22, Litwin insists. But Litwin’s errors and omissions not only call into question his conclusion. They actually help illuminate the connections between Northwoods and the events of November 1963. Did I say anything vaguely like that in my post on Operation Northwoods? Of course not. But what is the connection? Even Morley says, " the full story of Operation Northwoods and Kennedy's assassination is still murky." So, what is the relationship? Morley tries to come up with something: “Not only did the disclosure of Operation Northwoods in 1997 reveal the conspiratorial and anti-democratic mentality that prevailed at the highest levels of the CIA and the Pentagon in November 1963,” I recently wrote. “Northwoods also bore a passing resemblance to the events of November 22. Within hours of Kennedy’s murder, CIA’s assets in the AMSPELL network sought to blame the crime on Cuba by linking Oswald to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.” But didn't Oswald link himself to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC)? To Morley, Oswald has no agency; he must have been directed to the FPCC. Morley's argument of a connection between Northwoods and the assassination rests on timing: The Northwoods paper served as a formal JCS policy guidance on Cuba from May to September 1963. That’s when U.S. military and intelligence agencies initiated the “coordinated program” to create a pretext for a U.S. invasion. And that’s when the CIA apparatus started to focus attention on an obscure supporter of Fidel Castro, an itinerant leftist named Lee Harvey Oswald. What CIA apparatus focused its attention on Oswald? Of course, it was Oswald's visit to the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City that triggered CIA attention. Why does Morley drag the CIA into the JCS Northwoods plan? And, of course, Morley brings in his favorite target, George Joannides: During the four months that Northwoods was JCS policy, an undercover officer in Miami, George Joannides was responsible for guiding and monitoring the AMSPELL network, which had a series of encounters with Oswald in which they collected intelligence, engaged in political action, and generated propaganda about his pro-Castro ways for New Orleans newspaper, radio, and TV outlets. Joannides oversaw the DRE in Florida. The encounters with Oswald in New Orleans were with Carlos Bringuier, and it was he who reported this back to DRE in Florida. He didn't need orders from Joannides to confront Oswald or to debate him on radio -- he did that all on his own. Morley writes: Litwin argues the CIA didn’t intend for its assets in the AMSPELL program to do what they did. It was just a lone anti-Castro activist taking on the lone nut, he writes. I should have written that it was largely the result of the pre-assassination work of one man, Carlos Bringuier. As Morley must certainly know, all of DRE's information about Lee Harvey Oswald came from Carlos Bringuier. Here is an article from the December 10, 1963, issue of the Charleston, South Carolina News & Courier: It was completely in character for Carlos Bringuier to blame the assassination on Castro. He didn't need orders. Bringuier had been trying hard to tell everybody that Oswald was an avowed supporter of Fidel Castro since the debate with Bill Stuckey: Was the "press relief" part of the undisclosed Oswald operation? Did the CIA have to instruct Bringuier to issue this statement? And right after the assassination, Bringuier continued as would be expected. Here is an excerpt from an article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune from November 24, 1963: Morley believes that "a covert CIA program - AMSPELL - shaped the first-day coverage." But wouldn't it have been natural for Bringuier and other anti-Castro Cuban leaders to blame Castro? And Morley seems to understand this. Here is a quote from his 2008 book, Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA: (page 175) All the former DRE leaders emphasized that they did not take orders from the CIA, and there is good reason to take them at their word. In 1963, they were passionate young anticommunists who feared their homeland was in danger of slipping under one-party control forever. They did not need a CIA man from Washington to tell them to take against a public supporter of Castro like Oswald. Morley claims that Jose Antonio Lanuza and Carlos Bringuier were "both assets to the CIA." But Bringuier never saw a penny from DRE funds and his only contact with the CIA was with the Domestic Contact Service in New Orleans. And even then, Bringuier's contact with the DCS was in 1967 in reference to Jim Garrison's ridiculous JFK investigation. Morley believes that it was the CIA that was significantly responsible for first-day coverage of the assassination: In short, Litwin (like CIA defenders in mainstream news organizations) prefers to avoid the strong evidence that a covert CIA program — AMSPELL — shaped the first-day coverage of Kennedy’s assassination by generating headlines about the “pro-Cuban gunman.” It was Oswald and his actions that were responsible for the first-day coverage. And supposedly Lanuza saw the conspiracy: In 1963, Lanuza, then a 24-year-old law student, simply assumed Oswald was guilty. Now a retired schoolteacher, he says the AMSPELL network was used by conspirators seeking to kill JFK and blame Cuba. Why would Lanuza say they were being used? Lanuza wonders: "who better to show that he was a communist?" But it was Oswald, once again, who showed that he was a communist. 3. Morley Links Northwoods to Dallas Morley adds "context" to the story by bringing up undercover officer Donald Heath: Inside the CIA’s Miami station on Nov. 22, 1963, undercover officer Donald Heath recalled his colleagues immediately suspected that the assassination of Kennedy and the arrest of Oswald were a provocation to generate a U.S. invasion. While the White House, FBI, and national press corps were insisting Oswald acted alone, the CIA men in south Florida were not so naive. They didn’t think the conveniently dead Oswald was solely responsible, and they didn’t suspect he acted at Castro’s behest. The word 'provocation' does not appear in Heath's memo. And there is no basis for Morley's writing about what "they" thought or suspected. Heath was simply asked to investigate leads "possibly linking Castro Cuba or the Cuban exile community" to the assassination. So what? Morley then marries the Heath memo with Operations Northwoods: Heath’s memo, read in conjunction with the Northwoods documents, begs a legitimate question: Was the ambush in Dallas an “engineered provocation” designed to blame a spectacular crime on Castro so as to justify a U.S. invasion? To put the question more precisely: Did AMSPELL case officer Joannides use his agents to generate propaganda about Oswald as part the Pentagon’s “coordinated program to create a pretext for overt U.S. military intervention” in Cuba? This is an incredible reach. What was the provocation - the assassination of JFK or the so-called propaganda about Oswald? And was it really an ambush in Dallas? I'd like Morley to flesh this out and tell us what he thinks happened in Dallas. Does he support the debunked acoustics evidence? On what evidence does he base his conclusion that there was an ambush? Because Morley has no evidence to link Northwoods to Joannides, he must claim only that "there are circumstantial reasons to think so." Here are his four points: Joannides worked under U.S. Army cover in other assignments. He adopted a new cover identity in January 1963 when he took over handling of the AMSPELL program. In June 1963, Joannides was cleared for access to Special Intelligence (SI) gathered by a sensitive CIA wiretapping operation. Researcher Robert Reynolds has found five other examples of SI clearances in the JFK collection. Four of the five were cleared for wiretaps in Mexico City; one was for wiretaps in Havana. Was Joannides cleared for access to the wiretap program (code name LIENVOY) which picked up Oswald’s visit to Cuban and Soviet diplomatic offices in Mexico City a few months later? It is at least possible. Only the CIA knows. The “intelligence methods” and the “cover” that Joannides used while running the AMSPELL program in 1963 and 1964 (and stonewalling Congress in 1978) are still highly classified for reasons of “national security.” Did Joannides have Pentagon cover in 1963? Did his methods include combatting pro-Castro leftists in the United States? The CIA says the answers to these questions are too sensitive to disclose. These circumstantial elements are weak. First, the fact that Joannides worked under U.S. cover in other assignments, and that he "adopted a new cover identity in January 1963" doesn't speak to the issue at hand. Morley makes a big deal out of the fact that in June 1963, Joannides was "cleared for access to Special Intelligence." He wonders if this clearance gave Joannides access to wiretaps from Mexico City that picked up Oswald's visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies. But many people received SI clearance. Here is a memo dated 18 April 1956 from CIA Director of Security Sheffield Edwards to the CIA Inspector General reporting on a talk he'd had with Admiral Connelly from the Killian Committee: (thanks to Larry Haapanen for the tip) Edwards writes that "Admiral Connelly had just received a report from Mr. Godel of the Department of Defense on the number of persons in government cleared for Special Intelligence. He was rather shocked by the total figure, which is well over [ ]." A good example is that of Bradley Ayers and another Army officer on loan to the CIA for training and planning, who were granted SI clearance. Special intelligence doesn't just refer to wiretaps but to other forms of signal intelligence. Would it make any sense to give Joannides access to the Mexico City wiretaps, much less to put his clearance in writing? 4. George Joannides and the ARRB Morley admits that "a staffer of the Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB) who saw Joannides' personnel file said it contained nothing on Oswald." This is extremely misleading. Michelle Combs examined the Joannides' personnel file and she also clearly understood exactly who Joannides was. Here is her memo once again: Combs said that "there is no mention of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in the file and no information relevant to the assassination in the file." Does Morley really believe that Ms. Combs was not capable of understanding what was relevant in Joannides' file? Morley claims that the CIA has a "record of false statements about the Joannides file." He quotes from a December 6, 2022, letter that Judge Tunheim sent to President Biden in which he said that the CIA has "deliberately misled" the ARRB. But did Judge Tunheim know the details of the Combs' memo? In March of 2023, I emailed Judge Tunheim and asked him about the memo: Dear Judge Tunheim: I am the author of the new book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza. There has been a lot of controversy about George Joannides and documents that should or should not be released. Are you aware of this ARRB document? [I attached the above document] This document seems to indicate that the ARRB knew exactly who Mr. Joannides was and that his file was examined. Are you familiar with this document? Here is his reply: Hi Mr. Litwin, Thank you for your email. I was not aware of this document, but I was aware that our staff had seen the Joannides personnel file near the end of our operation. My recollection is that staff was told by the CIA that there was nothing of note in the file and that the recommendation was to not order release. Things were moving quickly at the end, and it seems Jeremy Gunn did not see fit to tell us more. John R. Tunheim | District Judge United States District Court District of Minnesota So, Tunheim was not aware of that document when he sent that letter to President Biden. Tunheim was also unaware of other details about Joannides that were disclosed to the ARRB: We were told that Joannides was simply the liaison for the CIA with the House Select Committee on Assassinations and nothing more. We returned the file to the Agency. It turned out that this claim was a shadow of the truth. Joannides had earlier overseen the training in Miami of anti-Castro Cubans in advance of the Bay of Pigs, which most certainly was possibly relevant to the assassination. Morley quoted this paragraph in his post but left out the phrase "in advance of the Bay of Pigs," which was one of Tunheim's errors of fact. The ARRB clearly knew quite a lot about Joannides. I asked Judge Tunheim for further details, and he replied: Hi Fred, all I recall is what I was told, likely by Jeremy Gunn — that there was nothing in the Joannides file of interest. Whether Michelle reviewed the file or was told that by the CIA people I don’t know. I do not recall being told of the DRE connection, just that he was the intermediary for the House Select Committee. I have sent an email to several former staff to see if they know how to contact Michelle. John R. Tunheim | District Judge United States District Court District of Minnesota I do not expect that there is anything of substantive interest in the Joannides personnel file. I do hope the CIA releases the entire file at some point which might stop the endless posts from Jefferson Morley about the "44 documents." And that would truly be a service to the country. Thanks to Paul Hoch, Tracy Parnell, Robert Reynolds, Dale Myers, and Larry Haapanen who have done some excellent work on these issues. Previous Relevant Blog Posts W. Tracy Parnell on Jefferson Morley W. Tracy Parnell is one of the best JFK assassination researchers out there. Here is his look at Jefferson Morley with several important articles. The Truth about Operation Northwoods Operation Northwoods can only understood as being part of the Kennedys war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose. Jefferson Morley Responds to my Post on MK-Ultra and Jack Ruby And a response from me. Did Dr. Louis Jolyon West Ask to Examine Jack Ruby in November 1963? There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial. Did the CIA use a MK-Ultra Psychiatrist to Interfere with Jack Ruby's Case? There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case. Jefferson Morley is wrong about "Who Shot John?" The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Four Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions... An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents.

A recent blog post by Jefferson Morley alleged that a CIA employee, Reuben Efron, was "a clandestine operative who read the mail of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald for twenty months before the assassination" of JFK. Morley claims the memo "sheds new light on secret CIA operational activities around Oswald." He also alleges that "Reuben Efron helped in the [counterintelligence] effort," and "the CIA hid his story for 60 years." His blog post concerned a memo that was recently released in full by NARA in its recent batches of JFK assassination records: With only Efron's name redacted, copies of this memo had been released in 1993, and in 1998. Here is a short guide to Morley's claims about this memo: Morley Claim. -- The CIA was reading Oswald's mail. Fact. -- True, but the focus on Oswald as a target is misleading. The CIA ran a program called HT-Lingual which intercepted some mail going to and coming from the Soviet Union. On November 9, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald's name was added to the watch list because of his defection to the Soviet Union. The Church Committee estimated that 75% of the letters that were opened were chosen at random, not because the name was on the watch list. The program intercepted a letter from Marguerite Oswald to her son and that was it. After the assassination, additional items of potential relevance to the assassination investigation were recovered from the HT-Lingual files, but those additional items did not include any correspondence to or from Oswald himself. Morley Claim. -- This new document shows that Reuben Efron read Oswald's mail for 20 months. Fact. -- All the document shows is that Efron read Marguerite Oswald's letter to Lee Harvey Oswald (perhaps for the first time) after learning of his impending return in a 1962 Washington Post article. It is not clear where Morley's "20 months" comes from. The dates he cited cover less than 14 months. Morley Claim. -- This was the first time that "the CIA had ever disclosed that Efron read Oswald's mail and that he was a CIA employee." Fact. -- Efron's name was released in 2017 in this testimony before the HSCA, In fact, James Angleton was asked about Efron during his HSCA testimony. Here is another document which was made public in 1998, which shows that Efron translated and circulated a post-assassination (1964) letter from Marina Oswald. In addition, John Newman mentioned Efron (as Ephron) in his 2017 book Countdown to Darkness. Morley Claim. -- "The memo is strong evidence that Angleton was running a covert operation that used Oswald for intelligence purposes." Fact. -- The memo does no such thing. Efron saw an article in the Washington Post about Oswald, went into the files, and found the letter from Marguerite Oswald. Morley Claim. -- Efron reacted to a Texas newspaper article. Fact. -- No, he was responding to a Washington Post article, from June 9, 1962 which said that Oswald was on his way back to the United States. No one was feeding Efron an article from an obscure source. Morley Claim. -- "[The person] who gave Efron the assignment of reading Lee's mail and watching Marina's testimony ... was almost certainly counterintelligence chief James Angleton." Fact. -- Efron might have been there because he was friends with Richard Russell, with whom he had seen UFOs in 1955, and who might have wanted Efron's take on Marina Oswald's testimony. A week before Marina's testimony, Russell recommended Efron as a translator to Lee Rankin at a Warren Commission meeting. Harold Weisberg published that Commission executive session transcript with Efron's name in 1974. In addition, if the CIA had wanted him at Marina's interview for some covert reason, Efron would not have been identified using his true name. Morley Claim. -- "The CIA's 'no comment' speaks volumes." Fact. -- The CIA does not comment on most allegations. Morley Claim. -- Angleton's operation using Oswald is "why Efron's name was classified long after this death: because his operational work in 1963 was -- and is -- so sensitive." Fact. -- There is no shortage of names and items that the CIA has redacted over the years for no apparently good reason. Not every redaction is proof of an operation, or evidence of operational sensitivity. Robert Reynolds has discussed on his excellent blog the existence of zombie redactions: “A zombie redaction is a redaction in copy X of a document which has already been released in copy Y of the same document, tucked away in some other file or folder or microfilm reel.” While the Efron memo is not exactly a "zombie redaction," it is close. The similar Efron memo about a Marina Oswald letter did have him identified years ago. Morley Claim. -- "They [the CIA] were reading his {Oswald's] mail, they had insight into his personal thinking." Morley also claimed “The memo shows that high-level CIA officers were interested in the smallest details of Oswald’s life 17 months before Kennedy was killed,” Fact. -- The letter from Marguerite Oswald did not give the CIA insight into Oswald's personal thinking. The memo shows that it went to people above Efron because of an article in the Washington Post. Morley Claim. -- "The family history cited by JTA says he worked for the Pentagon, raising the question of whether he was also reading Oswald’s mail on behalf of the Defense Department." Fact.-- A JTA article in Haaretz mentioned that Efron worked for the Pentagon. This may be true, but perhaps that was his cover. There is no evidence Efron was also "reading Oswald's mail on behalf of the Defense Department." For the last several years, Jefferson Morley has claimed that there is evidence of a CIA operation around Lee Harvey Oswald in the personnel files of George Joannides. However, the ARRB examined these files and only put five documents in the JFK assassination record collection, deeming the rest of the documents not relevant. To Morley, the so-called disclosure of Reuben Efron's name reinforces his view that there was some sort of undisclosed CIA operation surrounding Oswald. The truth may simply be that Oswald just happened to bump into a variety of sensitive but unrelated operations: surveillance of the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City; opening of mail (not just his) to and from the Soviet Union; anti-Fair Play for Cuba Committee activities (not just against him) by the DRE; coverage of the mail of the Russian embassy in Washington D.C.; and even (back in 1960) the FBI's monitoring of 'funds transmitted to residents of Russia.' The sensitivity of all of these could easily make a lone-gunman assassination look conspiratorial. It's just a matter of time before another supposed discovery will, once again, confirm to Morley that there was a supposed "Oswald operation." While Jefferson Morley can generate headlines in the New York Times and the Times of Israel, sooner or later, news outlets will realize that they've been had and that the "Oswald operation" is just a hypothesis with no actual evidence. Research and analysis for this article was contributed by Jerry Shinley, Robert Reynolds, Larry Haapanen, Gerald Posner, Mark Zaid, Mark Allen, Steve Roe, Tracy Parnell and Paul Hoch (who also helped edit this article). Previous Relevant Blog Posts A Reply to Jefferson Morley regarding Operation Northwoods Morley responded to my article "The Truth about Operation Northwoods." Here is my reply. W. Tracy Parnell on Jefferson Morley W. Tracy Parnell is one of the best JFK assassination researchers out there. Here is his look at Jefferson Morley with several important articles. The Truth about Operation Northwoods Operation Northwoods can only understood as being part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose. Jefferson Morley Responds to my Post on MK-Ultra and Jack Ruby And a response from me. Did Dr. Louis Jolyon West Ask to Examine Jack Ruby in November 1963? There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial. Did the CIA use a MK-Ultra Psychiatrist to Interfere with Jack Ruby's Case? There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case. Jefferson Morley is wrong about "Who Shot John?" The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Four Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions... An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents.

An insane beginning to an Oliver Stone interview with Russell Brand: Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (0.07) Russell Brand: Hello, there you 6.5 million awakening wonders, thanks for joining me on this great voyage to truth and freedom in which we must commune with truth-tellers like the great Oliver Stone, whose new film Nuclear Now is out now. There's a link down there in the description. I asked Oliver Stone about JFK, do we have more access to the truth now? And are we being told the truth about Putin: is he a reasonable man or is he a nut-job tyrant war criminal? Or is it a bit of both? Stay to the end of this conversation, you're going to love it, Oliver Stone: We're going, we're taking Russia into the edge now. We are really going to the edge. This is crazy, what's going on and nuts, suicidal. We are going to hurt ourselves in a big way. This is a potential World War Three. This is the same situation as World War One, in a sense. The stupidity of it, is of the alliances and the fears and the built-up phobias. If we don't stop this, what Biden is doing, this guy is, I voted for ... My main mistake. thinking that he is an old man now, that he would calm down and be more mellow and so forth. I didn't see that at all. I see a man who maybe is not in charge of his own administration. Who knows? But he's going to fall down somewhere. But it seems that he's dragging us stupidly into a confrontation with a power that's not going to give. This is their borders. This is their world. This is NATO going into Ukraine. This is a whole other story. This is not as bad as we did. We did a lot of terrible things from 2001 on. We put, we NATOized a lot of these countries on the far end in Eastern Europe, who are anti-Russian because of old hostilities. And you know, you get dragged into Balkan Wars here. This is really the same thing as World War One. We're, our allies are rabid, anti-Russian people, the Ukrainian government and who are they fighting? They're fighting ethnic Russians in Ukraine. This is the madness of it. And our media does not recognize that the, what he called the ethnic Russians in Ukraine are really the ones who want their autonomy. That's all they asked for in 2014 -- autonomy. And they were about to get it. There was a deal about to be made with Putin and and Ukraine, right in March of 2022, when the war started. There was a deal about to be made; the Americans squashed and they didn't want to deal, they don't want the peace treaty. They don't want to give autonomy to Donbas and Luhansk. Now, look where we are, it's gotten worse and it's gonna get worse. Notice that he doesn't say one word about Vladimir Putin. Stone blames the war in Ukraine on Biden, and absolves Putin of any responsibility. There was no deal to be made with Putin, and there was no deal between Putin and Zelensky. As for the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine, well, it's the Russians who have made their lives miserable. Look at what the Russians did to Mariupol - a Russian-speaking city in Donetsk. Here is a CBC documentary on Mariupol. Here is an important article: Those who argue that Russian President Vladimir Putin should be allowed to keep parts of Ukraine should meet the survivors of his atrocities. They know firsthand the horror of life under Russian occupation. Their stories remind us of what Ukraine is fighting for — and what the free world is standing against. Anna Zaitseva was a 24-year-old schoolteacher in Mariupol when Russian forces attacked her city in the first days of the invasion in February 2022. She and her 3-month-old son took refuge in the Azovstal Iron and Steel Works plant, where her husband, Kirilo, worked. A former soldier, Kirilo left his family bunkered there and joined the local defense forces, known as the Azov Regiment. Zaitseva brought enough diapers and food to last a few days. Zaitseva and her son were trapped inside the plant for 65 days, enduring constant Russian shelling. They emerged only to find their hometown destroyed — but their ordeal was just beginning. She and her baby were evacuated via a supposed “safe corridor” that was anything but safe. The Russians regularly attacked civilians who were trying to get out of the city. During Zaitseva’s own evacuation, Russian forces bombed a building she was in and Ukrainian soldiers had to dig her out. Zaitseva was then taken to a “filtration camp” run by the Russian army. There, she was strip-searched, forced to hand over all of her electronics — and told to leave her baby in her captors’ care. (She refused.) She was interrogated about her husband, but she didn’t know his whereabouts. Only through a YouTube video did she learn that Kirilo had been taken into captivity, on a stretcher, when the steel plant fell. The last time they spoke on the phone was 11 months ago. “I don’t even know if he’s alive,” she told me in an interview last week in Washington. Now a refugee in Germany with her son and mother, she still shudders whenever she hears a helicopter. She has no idea when she will be able to return home, if ever. Meanwhile, she is traveling the world with a message: Don’t abandon the Ukrainians living on the Russian side of the front lines. “People in the West are tired of this topic, sure,” she said. “But could you think about the people in captivity? Are they tired or not?” Zaitseva came to Washington last week to attend the screening of the film “Slava Ukraini,” the latest war documentary by French writer and philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy. The film follows Lévy as he tours the front lines in eastern Ukraine. His goal is to remind Western audiences of the stakes in the Russia-Ukraine war for the greater cause of freedom and human rights. “Ukraine is a shield that protects all of Europe and the United States from Putin’s barbaric actions,” Zaitseva said. “Don’t think that Ukraine is so far away — everything is connected in this world.” Bernard Henri-Levy is worth listening to: Here is the trailer for Levy's film: Previous Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's Politics JFK Jr. Meets Oliver Stone My Hearty Congratulations to the Jerusalem Film Festival Shame on the Jerusalem Film Festival Oliver Stone says Putin is a "very refined individual" Oliver Stone Says the Russians are "Kicking Ass" in Ukraine Oliver Stone says that "Putin is a great leader for his country Oliver Stone is now in Alex Jones Territory! Oliver Stone: Putin is a rational, calm, thoughtful man: the United States is a Doberman... Has Oliver Stone Gone Mad? Oliver Stone Said Vladimir Putin is "very bright" and "wise" Oliver Stone's 'Bromance' with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone Blames the United States for Putin's Invasion of Ukraine Celebrities Who Have Been Friendly with Putin Oliver Stone Says Vladimir Putin Fell into an American Trap The Day Vladimir Putin Fooled Oliver Stone with a Doctored Video Oliver Stone Watches Dr. Strangelove with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone is Vladimir Putin's Mouthpiece Oliver Stone Says that Putin was Provoked... Will Oliver Stone Blame Kazakhstan Unrest on the United States? Is Oliver Stone Becoming a Lackey for China? Oliver Stone said the CIA may have injected cancer into Hugo Chavez's rectum... Oliver Stone Sides with Cuba's 'Repressive Dictatorship Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev... Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Relevant Links on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone's Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez Is the director's latest film soft on Castro? Oliver Stone defends himself After Calling Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law ‘Sensible’ Hollywood Movie Director Oliver Stone praises Putin for Syria intervention on trip to Saudi Arabia Oliver Stone: Jewish Control of the Media is Preventing Free Holocaust Debate Oliver Stone's Latest Dictator Suckup Oliver Stone’s Latest Piece of Pro-Putin Propaganda May Be His Most Shameless Move Yet ‘The Putin Interviews’: Oliver Stone’s Wildly Irresponsible Love Letter to Vladimir Putin Has Oliver Stone Ever met a Dictator He Doesn't Admire? Oliver Stone's 'Empathy' for Hitler Iran's Fajr Film Festival grabs headlines with Oliver Stone Don't miss the Viewer's Guide to JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Over the past several months, I have shown in multiple blog posts how Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers. In fact, despite months of work, there are still many more misleading segments that need to be addressed. It's no wonder that the fact checkers of Netflix nixed the airing of the films. There is a choice between four hours of tendentious nonsense (JFK: Destiny Betrayed) and two hours (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass). As a handy guide for viewers, here are all those posts in order of their appearance in JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, preceded by some general critiques. The Viewer's Guide has now been updated to include the sources from my new book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza.

Lane and Garrison in March 1967 in New Orleans I just blogged about Mark Lane's appearance on the Joe Dolan Show on KNEW radio after returning from New Orleans and meeting Jim Garrison. Lane was certain that Garrison had evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. In 1992, Lane published a guide to Oliver Stone's film JFK in a reprint of his book Rush to Judgment. Lane basically accuses Oliver Stone of defamation: Money Quote: Here Stone became inventive. He was neither bound by the cumbersome rules of evidence nor the rules of criminal procedure. He could create celluloid evidence. Shaw had died; therefore, Stone was not bound by the laws of defamation which apply, in the United States, only to the living. Apparently, the less-codified rules of common decency were not an impediment either. Here is what Mark Lane said about Clay Shaw and his supposed alias Clay Bertrand: It wasn't Jean Andrews, but Dean Andrews. And Stone did not abandon that scene with Shaw telling the police officer that his alias was Clay Bertrand. It's in the film JFK. Money Quote: I never saw credible evidence which convinced me that he [Clay Shaw] had ever used the alias. Why did Lane say nothing about this before or after the trial of Clay Shaw? He waited 23 years after Shaw's trial to say this. Lane also writes: Lane claims that Stone is "indulging his own fantasies and [is] misleading the audience." Lane was a huge supporter of Garrison -- he even wrote a letter to Garrison asking if he could write a book about his investigation. But here was this supposed amazing defense attorney, and he stood by while Clay Shaw was being persecuted. His belief in a JFK conspiracy and in what Garrison might find out was more important than helping an innocent man. Maybe the Oliver Stone film opened Mark Lane's eyes. I'd like to know a whole lot more about Lane's thoughts on Clay Shaw in the 1960s. This is yet another stain on his reputation. Here is the complete Mark Lane guide to Oliver Stone's JFK: Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Clay Bertrand JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? Links that debunk all the witnesses that supposedly link Clay Shaw to the alias Clay Bertrand. Was Jim Garrison Searching for Clay Bertrand in 1963? Yes, and everybody was looking for Bertrand in 1963 with no luck. Did Clay Shaw Admit to Aloysius Habighorst that he was Clay Bertrand? The evidence indicates that Shaw did not admit he was Clay Bertrand. The Search for Clay Bertrand A comprehensive look at the search for Clay Bertrand. Did Clay Shaw Sign the VIP Room Guestbook as Clay Bertrand? There is no evidence he signed the VIP guestbook. Did The FBI Know That Shaw was Bertrand? Some conspiracy theorists allege that the FBI knew that Clay Shaw used the alias Clay Bertrand. This is just plain not true.

Many people might be surprised that I buy an awful lot of conspiracy books. I'm interested in how they frame their arguments and I like to examine their footnotes. The new book, Coup in Dallas: The Decisive Investigation into Who Killed JFK, piqued my attention and my copy arrived a few days ago. I really wanted to have a look at the section on Permindex and to see where Albarelli got his information. The section on Permindex starts on page 77, and it begins by referencing this document: Albarelli includes the second and third paragraph of this document, a CIA translation of an article in Pravda, and thus makes it look like it originated with the Agency. Here is the actual article: The information from this Pravda article comes from the Italian communist-controlled newspaper Paese Sera, hardly a credible source. The Paese Sera articles are full of mistakes and contain lots of rumors with very little hard information. In fact, it is quite possible that these articles were part of a KGB operation to help convince Americans that the CIA was behind the assassination. Here is another interesting article. The articles were not just reprinted in communist newspapers, they hit the mainstream press in Le Devoir in Montreal. And from there to Canadian Dimension (a small left-wing magazine), and then Ramparts. The text in Albarelli's book is also riddled with errors: (Page 78) "It should be noted that Canadian-born lawyer and businessman Louis Bloomfield, who rose to the rank of major in the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps and was named in the reports as having been involved in the foundation of Permindex, was the attorney/representative of the Bronfman dynasty, alleged to have been significant investors in Permindex." Louis Bloomfield was the lawyer for several investors, but he was not the lawyer for the Bronfmans, and the Bronfmans were not investors in Permindex. I know this for a fact because I have gone through about twenty thousand letters from Bloomfield's law firm between 1958 and 1967. The only time Louis Bloomfield corresponded with the Bronfmans was for Jewish political events like Canadian Friends of Histadrut, or the Jewish National Fund. Albarelli then tries to link Bloomfield and Permindex with the Organisation de l’Armée Secrète (OAS) and makes this claim: "It should be noted that Major Bloomfield maintained an office in Tangier." (page 78) This is also false. There is not one letter in the Bloomfield letters that references Tangier. Albarelli then dismisses the notion that the Paese Sera articles were disinformation, and then writes this: (page 78) "More informed researchers recognize that the CIA's own documents prove that over the years, former OSS agent Col. Shaw had participated on a contract basis in agency activities." There is no footnote that relates to the claim that Shaw was a former OSS agent. How could there be? He wasn't. As for the continued claim that Shaw was a "contract agent," please see the following link: Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? Albarelli then tries to link the CIA with Permindex: (Page 78) "Agency documents are clear that Ferenc Nagy, a fellow Hungarian and close friend to Mandel, contacted the agency to invite their utilization of and involvement in the real estate development and management firm Permindex." Yes, Nagy made an offer to the CIA to place an agent in Permindex. However, Albarelli does not tell you about the CIA document that examined Permindex which indicated that it was not a good candidate to place an agent. Have a look at Charles White's memo on Permindex, which was written well after Clay Shaw was placed on the Board of Directors. A large part of Albarelli's book centers on the datebooks of Jean Pierre Lafitte, who was supposedly a "deep-cover contract operative for the CIA and U.S. drug enforcement agencies." (page ix) The datebooks discuss a Robert Shaw. Albarelli wonders if this is really Clay Shaw, and writes that "We therefore proceeded with the likelihood that Pierre meant Clay Shaw; in fact there is reason to believe Pierre worked for Shaw long before being hired in 1967 as chef of the Plimsoll Club in the International Trade Mart." There are no footnotes for any of this. "Now, with Lafitte's datebook as evidence, Clay Shaw's nexus cannot and should not be ignored or dismissed out of hand." (page 79) Albarelli then goes on to discuss the Rome World Trade Center (Centro Mondiale Commerciale or CMC) and goes on to quote, as his expert, Mae Brussell: (Page 79) "its (CMC) location was frequently moved, its presidents rotated; its modus operandi altered. CMC included Italian fascists, elements of the European paramilitary right, the CIA, and the U.S. Defense Department. There were major shareholders with banks located in Switzerland, Miami, Basel and other major cities." No footnote to support any of this. CMC did not move - they were based in Rome, and the ventured floundered because they could not get enough tenants. CMC was closed in 1962. There were no members of the paramilitary right, the CIA, or the U.S. Defense Department on the Board of CMC. Albarelli then tries to link CMC to Mussolini by quoting a Reuters article from 1959: "The organizers, Permanent Industrial Exhibition, 'Permindex,' have taken four large, abandoned palaces ... that were part of a dream world of the Italian Fascist dictator who planned them as the focus point of a grandiose world fair and monument to the external glory of Fascism ..." [Italics added by Albarelli] Yes, CMC got a very good deal on these abandoned buildings. So what? How on earth does this tie them to Mussolini? Albarelli then makes another incredible leap: (page 80) "Informed researchers assert that Permindex was a direct extension of Bill Donovan and William Stephenson's World Commerce Corporation and that WCC worked closely with the World Trade Mart of New Orleans, nominally to promote world trade." Of course, no footnotes on any of this. I don't even know what he means by "a direct extension" and how he brings Bill Donovan and William Stephenson is beyond my comprehension. He then says: (Page 80) "[International Trade Mart] ITM was founded by Col. Clay Shaw, who during WWII served under Donovan as an OSS liaison officer to Winston Churchill's headquarters." None of this is footnoted and none of this is true. There is absolutely no evidence of Clay Shaw link to the OSS. Albarelli then goes to to his other source of information on Permindex - Michele Metta and his books (he has published different versions of essentially the same book) on Permindex: Unfortunately, this book is a complete mess and contains just a bunch of rumors and allegations. Check out this post where Metta links Clay Shaw to the umbrella man. Albarelli quotes Metta tries to link Shaw with fascists: "According to Italian journalist Michele Metta, who reported persuasively on political intrigue and the machinations in Italy in 1963 but who suffered decades of criticism from American assassination researchers, the fascist Valerio Borghese was tied directly to CMC as president of Italian financial entity Credito Commerciale e Industriale. Metta insists that "Credicomin," headed by Borghese, who according to ally and Belgian fascist leader Leon Degrelle was the most important fascist in Italy and whose close relative appears in the address book of Clay Shaw, came into the hands of the son of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo." Huh? I don't understand that paragraph. And the link to Shaw is that a close relative of a fascist appears in his address book. Just who was that person? And why should we care? If you think this couldn't get any sillier than check this out: (page 84) "Over the years, variant sources have offered names of Permindex executives and board members. Among them were prominent Canadian, Swiss, and Italian businessmen and financiers, including aristocracy and their representatives. At one point, the board included American attorney Roy Cohn, who served as general counsel to rabid anticommunist Senator Joe McCarthy." Roy Cohn? Really? Of course, no footnote. But wait, there's more board members: (page 84) "For this investigation, Permindex board members who stand out include: Jean de Menil, who had known French anthropologist Jacques Soustelle years prior to Soustelle's personal revolt against de Gaulle and joining the OAS; Paul Raigorodsky, a White Russian with experience in the Soviet Union's oil industry who landed in Dallas after the war; and Prince Guiterez di Spadafora, Sicilian-Italian industrialist and landowner." Once again, a supposed link to OAS but no footnote! Spadafora was indeed a board member for a short period. Spadafora is used to tie this all in with Hitler. His son married the daughter of Hjalmar Schacht, who was Minister of Economics under Hitler until 1937. He clashed with Hitler over rearmament and was arrested by the Gestapo in 1944. He was tried and acquitted at Nuremberg. I don't know the relevance of any of this. Albarelli doesn't mention that George Mantello, the founder of Permindex, was a hero during the Holocaust. But Albarelli has found the key to all this in the Lafitte notebooks where he found this notation for Thursday November 7, 1963: (page 85) 11:30 meet Warsaw (+hotel) with T. and Hjalman/Ilse - Get $ Now what this entry means is beyond me. But Albarelli has figured it out.: (Page 85) "Considering the timing and the surrounding entries, we know that Ilse Skorzeny was in Dallas, and from there we deduce that she was having lunch with Uncle Hjalmar Schacht at the Old Warsaw, a posh restaurant known for its old-world European ambiance and cuisine located in the Oak Lawn/Maple Terrace neighborhood north of downtown Dallas." Ilse Skorzeny is related to Otto Skorzeny, but it unclear what the relationship is. You can read more about Skorzeny here. Of course, according to Albarelli, Permindex board member Paul Raigorodsky lived in an apartment next door to one of the addresses for George de Mohrenschildt. My head hurts. Can there be more to his utter nonsense? Yes, there is more! (Page 86) "Permindex member Jean de Menil, who married into the Schlumberger family and assumed charge of the global oil well services company, had served in Venezuela during the war, running Gen. Charles de Gaulle's Free French forces alongside Soustelle. Disillusioned with de Gaulle over the question of Algerian independence, Soustelle joined the OAS, which would attempt (on numerous occasions) to assassinate Charles de Gaulle. Jena de Menil had aligned with Soustelle over de Gaulle. It was President de Gaulle who raised alarms that Permindex was serving as a front for operations designed to topple his Republic and kill him in the process." The factoid that de Gaulle warned about Permindex has never been sourced. It's mentioned in several books - for instance, Bill Davy, in his book Let Justice Be Done, writes: (page 99) "However, one newspaper, that enjoys a better reputation, reportedly published an expose linking Permindex with the assassination attempts on French President Charles de Gaulle. In the spring of 1962, Les Echos (the French equivalent of the Wall Street Journal) ran several news stories and editorial reports of de Gaulle's accusations of Permindex involvement in many of the attempts on his life." Sounds convincing, no? Davy's source is a Lyndon LaRouche publication and he writes, "If there are any researchers with access to French newspaper archives, tracking this down would be a worthy project." In other words, he took this from a questionable source, and never did any research. Joan Mellen also mentions the allegation from Les Echos in her book, A Farewell to Justice (page 137) but doesn't provide a source. The concluding paragraph from Albarelli's chapter on Permindex and other organizations alleges "sanctioned assassinations": (Page 86) "Having confirmed that holding companies -- including CMC and Permindex -- served as fronts for intelligence operations, including sanctioned assassinations executed from WWII through the height of the Cold War, we turn to profiles of persons of interest who until now have skirted appreciable scrutiny, beginning with our chronicler Jean Pierre Lafitte -- familiar to Clay Shaw -- who would be selected as project manager for "Lancelot," the plot to kill JFK:" And Albarelli ends with a supposed note from Lafitte's datebook that proves the conspiracy: Hard 2 believe that it will go forward ... but it will, it is me? - Lafitte datebook, October 19., 1963. Gee, talk about convincing evidence! Update Greg Doudna challenges the authenticity of the Lafitte datebooks. On page vii there is a Publisher's Statement which says: "We are proud to bring to readers, researchers, and scholars Hank Albarelli Jr.'s book Coup in Dallas, a comprehensive analysis of the machinations behind the John F. Kennedy assassination. We do not have a definitive position on the authorship of the Jean Pierre Lafitte 1963 datebook and make no representation or warranty as to the veracity of its entries. However, we feel that Hank was a serious and dedicated researcher with absolute faith in the legitimacy of the datebooks, and his analysis ought to be part of the public record." [emphasis added] Even Albarelli's publisher seems to have had some doubts.

Joe Dolan had a radio talk show on KNEW in Oakland in the 1960s. Here is a transcript of a show with Mark Lane:: Lane had been in New Orleans visiting Jim Garrison. Money Quote: Mark Lane: I've seen the evidence, Joe, and I know what the evidence shows. It shows that a very powerful, domestic force, which remains part of the American structure now, planned the events which culminated in the assassination of President Kennedy, and that anti-Castro Cubans executed the program. They didn't participate in the planning stages, but they pulled the trigger. Mr. Garrison has the evidence. It's overwhelming; it's documented in terms of eye-witness testimony, in terms of various documentary testimony, and he's going to present this and when he does, of course there'll be a great sense of outrage in the country, and with good reason, because it will then become plain why the government felt it had to issue a report which bore no relationship to the truth, because the kind of disclosures which will be made there in that courtroom are just the kind which no government has ever voluntarily made about itself. This was all very similar to a Mark Lane phone call to the Mort Sahl Show. Here's another short excerpt from that Mort Sahl Show: Money Quote: Mark Lane: He [Jim Garrison] knows -- and this of course was the most startling evidence that has been presented me -- he presents it with great detail ... so that it is impossible not to accept it ... indicating that he is relying on various witnesses, not just one "key" witness .. and not only witnesses but documentary evidence ... which just cannot be denied ... Garrison knows now, and has told me .. and I think aside from Garrison's staff, I am the only persons in America -- in the world -- who knows ... what the evidence shows. Previous Relevant Blog Posts "I Know Who Killed JFK," Part One Mort Sahl on Jim Garrison. "I Know Who Killed JFK," Part Two Mark Lane meets Jim Garrison Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Mark Lane Did the CIA Try to Kill Mark Lane? Lane makes a startling allegation. Mark Lane: The Left's Leading Hearse-Chaser A profile from Mother Jones magazine. The Case Against Mark Lane A profile from Esquire Magazine. The Mark of Zorro An Anthony Lewis column on Mark Lane from 1978. Mark Lane's Scholarship! Howard Roffman finds that Mark Lane's scholarship is lacking. Mark Lane, Conspiracy Addict A profile of Mark Lane in Newsweek. Mark Lane offers to introduce Jim Garrison to "Mr. Candy" For $25,000 Mark Lane offers to introduce Jim Garrison to a witness that would tie Jack Ruby with Clay Shaw. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions... This post has a good case study of how Mark Lane exploited a redaction in a document.

Abraham Bolden held a press conference in May, 1964, in which he made several accusations against the Secret Service: Chicago Daily News, May 20, 1964 Notice that Bolden said nothing about a supposed plot against JFK in Chicago in November 1963. Bolden's press conference was also front-page news in the Chicago Tribune and their article also had nothing about a supposed plot. I went to RFK Jr.'s favorite JFK assassination book, JFK and the Unspeakable, to see how this is described: (page 215) Douglass doesn't mention Bolden's press conference at all. Nor did Bolden say anything about Secret Service credentials being used as a cover device. Douglass writes: "He also thought about the connection between Chicago and Dallas, wondering if that information shouldn't be shared with the Warren Commission." James DiEugenio also claims that Bolden wanted to tell the Warren Commission about the Chicago plot: (page 275 in Destiny Betrayed) "Back in Washington, in May of 1964, he tried to contact the Warren Commission. He wanted to tell them about the Chicago plot and the lax standards of the Secret Service White House detail, which he had seen up close." Bolden did want to testify, but not about the supposed Chicago plot: Chicago Daily News, May 22, 1964 Bolden's lawyer made the decision that he should not testify before the Warren Commission: In addition, the FBI report said this: But Douglass said there was a connection between Chicago and Dallas. And his source is Abraham Bolden. Bolden never told the Warren Commission or the FBI about the supposed connections between Chicago and Dallas. He didn't tell the press about these connections in 1964. He didn't say one word about the Chicago plot until 1967. Maybe, just maybe, there was no plot in Chicago and thus no connection. Previous Relevant Blog Posts "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence of a plot in Chicago against JFK. Paul Bleau and the Supposed Chicago Plot Against JFK Bolden's story about the supposed Chicago plot has changed over the years. Paul Bleau's Plots An examination of supposed other plots against JFK.

I'm glad he walked out, but why on earth did he go? San Francisco Chronicle, April 8, 2002 Here is how Richard Blow reported the story in Vanity Fair: The challenge for John was even more difficult. Could he promote George even when it meant compromising his sense of dignity, his feel for what was appropriate and what wasn’t? A case in point: That fall Michael Berman decided that John should interview Chelsea Clinton. One presidential kid talking to another—a surefire crowd pleaser. But John flatly refused. Hillary Clinton had once asked his mother for advice on raising a child in the White House, John explained. His mother’s response: Never let Chelsea talk to the press. And now Michael wanted John to defy his mother’s wishes? Not a chance. Then there was the Oliver Stone fiasco. Our second issue would hit the stands in November, just before Stone’s film Nixon opened. An established director making a movie about a political legend, Stone was a natural George story. Not to mention that he had directed the conspiracy—theory film on the assassination of John’s father. Eric wanted John to interview Stone so badly he was practically hopping up and down. For the first time, John would publicly discuss the conspiracy theories swirling around his father’s death. What editor wouldn’t kill to publish that? But there was one problem: John didn’t want to do it. He had made a conscious decision not to live his life haunted by his father’s assassination, trying to answer un-answerable questions. He’d never even seen JFK. On the other hand, John recognized that this story was manna from heaven for George, and in those early days he was bending over backward to try to do what we, the ostensible pros, thought he should do. In the end, against his better judgment, he agreed to interview Oliver Stone, but he refused to do it alone. So he and Michael flew to L.A. for a get-to-know-you dinner at Rockenwagner, a res-taurant in Santa Monica. They agreed that if John was uncomfortable at any point in the conversation he would get up and go to the rest room. Things did not go well. As they started their main course, Stone asked John’s opinion of the second-gunman theory. What did John think? Lee Harvey Oswald couldn’t really have killed John’s father alone, could he? Shot him from that far away, then shot him again? There had to have been a conspiracy. John excused himself, stood up, and walked away. As planned, Michael changed the subject. After John returned, dinner ended as soon as they could politely bring it to a close. Back in New York, we met in John’s office and tried to come up with a replacement interview fast. John apologized to Eric, who could not mask his disappointment, but refused to contact Stone again. As John spoke, conflicting emotions flickered across his face, revealing his distaste for Stone, his guilt over letting us down, and his self-recrimination for doing something he didn’t feel comfortable with. He shuddered as he said, “I just couldn’t sit across a table from that man for two hours. I just - couldn’t.” Previous Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's Politics My Hearty Congratulations to the Jerusalem Film Festival Shame on the Jerusalem Film Festival Oliver Stone says Putin is a "very refined individual" Oliver Stone Says the Russians are "Kicking Ass" in Ukraine Oliver Stone says that "Putin is a great leader for his country Oliver Stone is now in Alex Jones Territory! Oliver Stone: Putin is a rational, calm, thoughtful man: the United States is a Doberman... Has Oliver Stone Gone Mad? Oliver Stone Said Vladimir Putin is "very bright" and "wise" Oliver Stone's 'Bromance' with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone Blames the United States for Putin's Invasion of Ukraine Celebrities Who Have Been Friendly with Putin Oliver Stone Says Vladimir Putin Fell into an American Trap The Day Vladimir Putin Fooled Oliver Stone with a Doctored Video Oliver Stone Watches Dr. Strangelove with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone is Vladimir Putin's Mouthpiece Oliver Stone Says that Putin was Provoked... Will Oliver Stone Blame Kazakhstan Unrest on the United States? Is Oliver Stone Becoming a Lackey for China? Oliver Stone said the CIA may have injected cancer into Hugo Chavez's rectum... Oliver Stone Sides with Cuba's 'Repressive Dictatorship Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev... Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Relevant Links on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone's Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez Is the director's latest film soft on Castro? Oliver Stone defends himself After Calling Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law ‘Sensible’ Hollywood Movie Director Oliver Stone praises Putin for Syria intervention on trip to Saudi Arabia Oliver Stone: Jewish Control of the Media is Preventing Free Holocaust Debate Oliver Stone's Latest Dictator Suckup Oliver Stone’s Latest Piece of Pro-Putin Propaganda May Be His Most Shameless Move Yet ‘The Putin Interviews’: Oliver Stone’s Wildly Irresponsible Love Letter to Vladimir Putin Has Oliver Stone Ever met a Dictator He Doesn't Admire? Oliver Stone's 'Empathy' for Hitler Iran's Fajr Film Festival grabs headlines with Oliver Stone Don't miss the Viewer's Guide to JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Over the past several months, I have shown in multiple blog posts how Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers. In fact, despite months of work, there are still many more misleading segments that need to be addressed. It's no wonder that the fact checkers of Netflix nixed the airing of the films. There is a choice between four hours of tendentious nonsense (JFK: Destiny Betrayed) and two hours (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass). As a handy guide for viewers, here are all those posts in order of their appearance in JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, preceded by some general critiques. The Viewer's Guide has now been updated to include the sources from my new book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza.

A nice article by Josh Marshall on the recent kerfuffle with RFK Jr.: First, what’s the story? I noticed immediately that all the coverage stemmed from a single story in The New York Post (not a great sign) by Jonathan Levine. I’ve had a couple run-ins with Levine over the years, or at least I’ve seen pieces of his that struck me as tendentious, either by design or lack of familiarity with certain political questions. Don’t get hung up on whether I was right or wrong about him. I note this only to highlight that even though I have an extremely low opinion of RFK Jr. I went into this story with more than a little skepticism. But in this case, Levine was right on the mark. Kennedy’s words are his words. In fact Levine was so right on the mark it’s a bit shocking he was the only one to write it up. Lots of reporters were at this dinner and a lot of them wrote it up. But none mentioned this. The most one can say about Levine’s reporting in this case is that he drew out the obvious implication of Kennedy’s remark which was necessary because Kennedy used the standard many-people-are-saying and just-asking-questions type phrasings that are the calling card of his brand of conspiracy freaks. But again, his words are his words. He’s guilty as charged. You can see the video here. Here is a transcript of what RFK Jr. said: RFK Jr.: We need to talk about bioweapons. I know a lot about bioweapons because I'm doing a book on it for the past two and a half years and, you know, what we the technologies that we now have to develop these ways, we have hundreds of millions of dollars into ethnically targeted microbes. The Chinese have done the same thing. In fact, Covid-19, there's an argument that it is ethnically targeted. Covid-19 attacks certain races disproportionately … the races that are most immune to Covid-19, because of the structure, because of the genetic structure, the genetic differentials among different races of the receptors, of the ACE receptor. Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasian and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese. We don't know if it was deliberately targeted or not, but there are papers out there that show the racial and ethnic differential impact of that. We do know that the Chinese are spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing ethnic bioweapons. And we are developing ethnic bioweapons. That's where all those labs in the Ukraine are about; they're collecting Russian DNA; they're collecting Chinese DNA; so, we can target people by race. RFK Jr. pushed back on the story: Josh Marshall commented on RFK"s pushback: To my mind, though, the anti-Semitism is almost the least interesting part of this. Kennedy is a full-of-himself conspiracy theorist and bullshit artist. The whole line of thought he’s spouting here is textbook. He makes these pretty outrageous claims. Each link in the chain of his argument comes in a factitious wrapping of bullshit. He claims as a given, for instance, that Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews have greater immunity to COVID. There’s no evidence of this. There’s no evidence of this about “Caucasians and Black people” either, though African-Americans have been disproportionately affected by COVID, presumably through a mix of occupational exposure, pre-existing conditions in the United States and more limited access to the health care system. But again, it’s not just that the big neon-light crazy claim isn’t true. The secondary, in-passing claims are equally bogus. Kennedy also makes the general remark that China and the U.S. are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on “ethnically targeted bioweapons,” as though this is a given, even if his other claims about sparing the Jews may be surprising to some people. I can’t claim to know just what the U.S. or China are or are not doing in what are presumably secret programs. But I’ve been around DC and the national security chatosphere long enough to know bullshit at a distance. Again, I can’t know. Great Powers likely study or consider all sorts of crazy stuff at some hypothetical level. But this kind of talk is generally the fantasy or agitprop of warmongers and xenophobes. I mentioned earlier the factitious nature of Kennedy’s speech. He routinely peppers his comments with “there are papers” or “I could show you papers.” But these papers either don’t exist or don’t show anything remotely like what he claims. In this case he mentions a paper which supposedly backed all this up but which actually notes broadly that some viruses could have differential presentations in different ethnic groups. Even with my own very limited understanding of virology and human genetic diversity I suspect it would be extremely hard to engineer a virus that was deadly for one ethnic group and not a problem for another. To be specific, perhaps some geneticists and virologists could engineer a pathogen that killed 30% of victims with predominantly European ancestry and only 15% of people with predominantly Chinese ancestry. But is that a very good weapon for China to release into the world? I kind of doubt it. And I suspect even that kind of differential is wildly beyond anyone’s scientific ability. Besides, what if the engineered virus evolved to kill Chinese people just as effectively? Certainly over the last three years we’ve learned that viruses evolve pretty quickly and in unpredictable ways. This whole line of argument seems silly, though again I’m sure there’s some intelligence report somewhere showing that some scientists have studied the question. Here is one reaction to RFK's remarks: Twenty five journalists sat at the large, square banquet table. Call me paranoid, but Bobby was looking directly at me when he made his wrong-headed assertion that the coronavirus had passed over the homes of Ashkenazi Jews. The stunning moment was surreal and incomprehensible. But I’ve seen the video and heard the audio, so I know it’s true. “COVID 19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people,” said Kennedy. “The races that are most immune to COVID-19 are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” Sitting next to Kennedy at that moment was an Ashkenazi Jew, New York Post reporter Jon Levine. Check out his baffled expression on the video. Contrary to Bobby’s hair-brained theory, I got the coronavirus. My son, brother, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, nephews, niece, cousins and friends also got COVID. My neurologist’s medical partner got COVID and died. Ashkenazi Jews all. Bobby knows who I am. My wife, Liz, and I donated to his Riverkeeper nonprofit organization and watched him fly falcons at the Hudson River home of then-Gov. George Pataki. Bobby should also know that Frydman is a Jewish name of European ancestry. I’m not Sephardic. I’m fair-haired and light-skinned. That makes me Ashkenazi. You’d think his campaign manager, former Ohio congressman and Cleveland Mayor Dennis Kucinich, and staff would’ve prepped Bobby about the probability of Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese journalists being in attendance. In fact, there was a Chinese reporter from the Epoch Times at the table. That prep session wouldn’t have helped. Bobby knew what he was saying. He has clearly made a political calculation to forsake liberal Jews and, instead, play on the conservative side to Orthodox Jews like Mort Klein, president of the right-wing Zionist Organization of America. But even Klein, a prominent anti-vaxxer and good friend of RFK Jr. who’s advised him on Israel, is reportedly “worried” about Bobby’s kooky COVID comments. “This is crazy,” Klein was quoted as saying. “It makes no sense that they would do that. I read everything. I was totally against the vaccine…I wanted to convince myself it was correct not to take it. I have never seen anything like this.” The Anti-Defamation League also weighed in. “The claim that COVID-19 was a bioweapon created by the Chinese or Jews to attack Caucasians and Black people is deeply offensive and feeds into sinophobic and antisemitic conspiracy theories about COVID-19 that we have seen evolve over the last three years.” StopAntisemitism added, “We have no words for this man’s lunacy.” Truth is, I always liked Bobby. Until, that is, he became a leading voice of the anti-vax movement and fell out with his family by claiming Sirhan Sirhan didn’t assassinate his father. At first, I thought Bobby was a Kennedy contrarian, staking out his own political path as a right-of-center Democrat. I was a wrong. He’s a conspiracist. Considering running in his father’s footsteps for a U.S. Senate seat in New York, Bobby visited me in my office in 1998. He wanted my strategic media advice about an upcoming New York magazine story that would re-report his arrest for marijuana possession with cousin Bobby Shriver in Barnstable, Mass. when they were both 16 and his guilty plea in 1984 to possessing heroin in Rapid City, S.D. when he was 29. In both cases, Bobby received probation, plus community service. Better known as a Kennedy slap-on-the wrist. The story ran, but Bobby didn’t. When we met, Bobby never made eye contact with me. I chalked up that disconcerting characteristic to the trauma he suffered as a 14-year-old boy while watching his father murdered live on television on June 5, 1968. I decided then to give him a break. That break is over. Bobby’s crazy COVID commentary is dangerously irresponsible. The last thing this country needs is more antisemitism and hatred of Asian-Americans. This Ashkenazi Jew says RFK Jr. has disqualified himself from being president of the United States. RFK Jr.'s sister also strongly condemned his remarks: I strongly condemn my brother's deplorable and untruthful remarks last week about Covid being engineered for ethnic targeting. His statements do not represent what I believe or what Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights stand for, with our 50+-year track record of protecting rights and standing against racism and all forms of discrimination. Other relatives also chimed in: Another of their siblings, Joseph Kennedy II, also criticized the remarks. He is a former congressman and chair of Citizens Energy. “Bobby’s comments are morally and factually wrong,” he said in a statement provided to The Globe. “They play on antisemitic myths and stoke mistrust of the Chinese. His remarks in no way reflect the words and actions of our father, Robert F. Kennedy.” Former Massachusetts Representative Joseph Kennedy III also weighed in. “My uncle’s comments were hurtful and wrong. I unequivocally condemn what he said,” he tweeted from a personal account. Kennedy III is also serving as President Biden’s envoy to Northern Ireland. The real issue is RFK Jr.'s sloppy thinking. Whether its the JFK assassination, the RFK assassination, Covid-19 or vaccines, you can always count on RFK Jr. to come out with some very careless remarks. And that's not the kind of person you want as president of the United States. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on RFK Jr.: RFK Jr. Names the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination Finally, RFK Jr. gives us the name of one of the masterminds. RFK Jr. for President? Two articles on RFK Jr. RFK Jr. Shows He's Not a Serious Candidate His beliefs on Ukraine show that RFK Jr. is just not serious. Does RFK Jr. Have a Leaky Brain? RFK has some wacky views on Wi-Fi. Did RFK Jr. Tell Tony Muhammad that the CDC is Killing Black and Latino Boys? RFK Jr. has a disturbing relationship with the Nation of Islam. RFK Jr. is Taking Precautions to Avoid being Assassinated Besides being paranoid, RFK Jr. is naive about the world in which we live. Russian Propaganda Outlets are Pushing RFK Jr. Putin knows which candidate to back. RFK Jr. Misquotes JFK He can't even quote his uncle properly. RFK Jr. on the JFK Assassination and Jim Garrison He gets the Garrison story all wrong. RFK Jr.'s JFK Assassination Guru Promotes Crackpot Theories RFK Jr.'s favorite JFK assassination book is full of crackpot theories. RFK Jr. Continues with JFK Assassination Nuttiness! Just when you thought he couldn't get any nuttier.

In 1968, Bud Fensterwald asked several people to join his new association to investigate the JFK assassination. I have already posted replies from Leo Sauvage and David Lifton, who both declined to participate because of Jim Garrison. Here is Bud Fensterwald's letter to Sylvia Meagher: Here is Meagher's reply: Fensterwald wrote back: And Meagher replied once again: Here is the committee: Fensterwald asked one more time: Meagher again wrote Fensterwald in April, 1969: Previous Relevant Blog Posts regarding Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison Sylvia Meagher's Review of "The Kennedy Conspiracy" by Paris Flammonde A scathing review of Flammonde's book about the Garrison investigation. Mary Ferrell and Sylvia Meagher Discuss Jim Garrison An exchange of letters about Jim Garrison. Jim Garrison's Code and Sylvia Meagher Garrison comes up with a crazy code and Sylvia Meagher calls him out. Sylvia Meagher's Ode to the District Attorney of New Orleans Meagher also wrote poetry. Sylvia Meagher Writes Clay Shaw with an Idea Meagher's very good idea shows that Garrison didn't care to learn the truth. Kerry Thornley Writes Sylvia Meagher in 1970 Thornley tells Meagher about an article illustrating Garrison's pre-occupation with the JFK assassination. Tom Bethell Writes Sylvia Meagher about the Shaw Trial Bethell wrote Meagher about Charles Spiesel and his ridiculous testimony at the Clay Shaw trial. Sylvia Meagher's Letter to Look Magazine Sylvia Meagher's terrific letter to Look Magazine in response to their article "The Persecution of Clay Shaw." Sylvia Meagher Congratulates Clay Shaw On His Acquittal She was very pleased with his acquittal. Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison, Part One Meagher writes Clay Shaw a letter and his response is just terrific. Sylvia Meagher and Dr. Cyril Wecht Discuss Jim Garrison Dr. Wecht didn't think too much of Garrison, either. Mike Farrell, of M*A*S*H fame, and Sylvia Meagher Meagher educates Farrell on Jim Garrison. When will Oliver Stone Admit he was Wrong about Clay Shaw? A plea to Oliver Stone with a compilation of Meagher's writings about Jim Garrison. Sylvia Meagher on the Clay Shaw Case Howard Roffman writes a letter to Harold Weisberg about Sylvia Meagher. Penn Jones' Phone Call with Sylvia Meagher This phone call broke their relationship. Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison, Part Two An unpublished Meagher memo on the trial of Clay Shaw. Sylvia Meagher and Jim Garrison, Part Three - a never before published article by Meagher Another unpublished Meagher memo on the Garrison investigation and Warren Report critics. Garrison's Playboy Interview - What Couldn't Be Printed Sylvia Meagher's letter to the Editor regarding Garrison's interview in Playboy Magazine. Sylvia Meagher's Reaction to the Verdict in the Shaw Trial Meagher writes Harold Weisberg with her comments on the verdict. Two Letters to Jim Garrison about "A Heritage of Stone" James Phelan and Sylvia Meagher write Garrison letters about his book. Kerry Thornley writes Sylvia Meagher An exchange of letters between Thornley and Meagher. Did RFK Tell Garrison that there were guns between him and the White House? Meagher writes Thornley about Lane's comment on RFK. Was Jim Garrison Napoleon or Rasputin? Meagher writes Thornley with an opinion. M. S. Arnoni and Sylvia Meagher Take On Jim Garrison... Exchange of letters between Meagher, Arnoni and Garrison. Jim Garrison Blows His Top Meagher writes Weisberg about the damage Garrison is doing to critics of the Warren Report. James Phelan Writes to Richard Popkin Meagher replies to the New York Review of Books regarding Popkin's article on Garrison. Sylvia Meagher Replies to Richard Popkin An exchange of letters between Popkin and Meagher.

Dr. Lee was just found liable for fabricating evidence in Connecticut: Famed forensic scientist Henry Lee was found liable for fabricating evidence in a murder case that sent two Connecticut men to prison for decades for a crime they did not commit, a federal judge ruled Friday. Ralph “Ricky” Birch and Shawn Henning were convicted in the Dec. 1, 1985, slaying of Everett Carr, based in part on testimony about what Lee said were bloodstains on a towel found in the 65-year-old's home in New Milford, 55 miles (88.5 kilometers) southwest of Hartford. A judge vacated the felony murder convictions in 2020, and the men filed a federal wrongful conviction lawsuit naming Lee, eight police investigators and the town of New Milford. The ruling Friday sends the case against the police and the town to trial. In granting a motion for summary judgement against Lee, the only outstanding issue for a jury in his case will be the amount of damages. Here is more about the ruling: In his ruling Friday, which was first reported by The Hartford Courant, U.S. District Judge Victor Bolden ruled that Lee presented no evidence to back up his testimony. “Other than stating that he performed the test, however, the record contains no evidence that any such test was performed,” the judge wrote. “In fact, as plaintiffs noted, Dr. Lee’s own experts concluded that there is no ‘written documentation or photographic’ evidence that Dr. Lee performed the TMB blood test. And there is evidence in this record that the tests actually conducted did not indicate the presence of blood.” The judge also ruled that Lee failed to properly use an immunity defense that could have shielded him from damages and was no longer eligible to use that argument. You can read the ruling here. I discussed this case in my previous blog post on Dr. Henry Lee. Don't miss the Viewer's Guide to JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Over the past several months, I have shown in multiple blog posts how Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers. In fact, despite months of work, there are still many more misleading segments that need to be addressed. It's no wonder that the fact checkers of Netflix nixed the airing of the films. There is a choice between four hours of tendentious nonsense (JFK: Destiny Betrayed) and two hours (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass). As a handy guide for viewers, here are all those posts in order of their appearance in JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, preceded by some general critiques. The Viewer's Guide has now been updated to include the sources from my new book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza.

This eliminates RFK Jr. as a serious candidate: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Wednesday he believes Russia acted in “good faith” amid the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine, adding the U.S., in fact, bore heavy responsibility for the ongoing war. Here is a good piece about why we are fighting for Ukraine: To begin with, there is no question that the eastward expansion of NATO has been a severe neuralgic point for Moscow. But Putin’s concern has never been about actual military aggression from the defensively-oriented Western alliance. His real anxieties lie elsewhere: in the threat to the internal stability of his autocratic regime posed by the demonstration effect of successful liberal democracies on Russia’s doorstep. It is fear of democratic contagion that explains why, in one country after the next, using propaganda, intelligence operations, and direct violence, Putin has done his best to subvert democracy across Europe and the globe. On the territory of the former Soviet Union, Russia has waged war against Georgia, maintained troops in Moldova, pressured Kazakhstan, showed increasing determination to absorb Belarus, and sought to undermine the Baltic states. A Russia that seeks to be the prison house of nations is an enemy of freedom and a menace to the peace of the world. As for NATO: One obvious question Layne and Schwarz never pause to ask is why so many East European countries have been so eager to join the NATO Alliance. Could it be because all of them have had historical experience with Russian domination, lost their capacity to self-govern, been robbed of their basic freedoms, and suffered grievously from totalitarian oppression? Membership in the NATO alliance guards against a repetition of the terrible past. Even Finland and Sweden, two countries that have not exactly embraced American foreign policy in recent decades, now have rushed to join the safety afforded by the alliance. Of course, Ukraine has been the repeated victim of Russian aggression, including in the post-Soviet era. The annexation of Crimea in 2014, the simultaneous assault on the Russian-speaking regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, the attempted subversion and/or domination of successive governments in Kyiv, were all stamped firmly in the Ukrainian consciousness even before February 24, 2022. Like every other sovereign country, Ukraine has a right to its territorial integrity, to defend itself, to chart a course of its own choosing. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on RFK Jr. Does RFK Jr. Have a Leaky Brain? RFK has some wacky views on Wi-Fi. Did RFK Jr. Tell Tony Muhammad that the CDC is Killing Black and Latino Boys? RFK Jr. has a disturbing relationship with the Nation of Islam. RFK Jr. is Taking Precautions to Avoid being Assassinated Besides being paranoid, RFK Jr. is naive about the world in which we live. Russian Propaganda Outlets are Pushing RFK Jr. Putin knows which candidate to back. RFK Jr. Misquotes JFK He can't even quote his uncle properly. RFK Jr. on the JFK Assassination and Jim Garrison He gets the Garrison story all wrong. RFK Jr.'s JFK Assassination Guru Promotes Crackpot Theories RFK Jr.'s favorite JFK assassination book is full of crackpot theories. RFK Jr. Continues with JFK Assassination Nuttiness! Just when you thought he couldn't get any nuttier.